Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moreland board studies Measure M options for fields and tracks, asks staff for 10-year turf vs. grass cost analysis
Summary
At a study session, Moreland School District trustees reviewed four Measure M options for playgrounds, fields and tracks across the district, heard tradeoffs between synthetic turf and natural grass, and directed staff to produce a 10-year total-cost comparison and return with numbers for a Friday board report. No formal votes were taken.
Moreland School District trustees spent a study session reviewing four options for using remaining Measure M bond funds on playground shade, outdoor learning areas and field/track improvements, including whether to install synthetic turf, natural grass or a mix at several campuses. District staff asked the board for direction to begin design and contractor solicitation; the board did not take a formal vote.
The discussion centered on tradeoffs among initial cost, maintenance burden, water use and student safety. Stephanie Duranal, an architect with Coed Architecture who has worked for the district about 12 years, summarized the tradeoffs: “When I say turf, I mean synthetic turf.” Duranal noted studies and local experience that show natural grass cools by evapotranspiration and can reduce some injuries when it is in excellent condition, while synthetic turf requires a larger up-front cost but can withstand heavy year-round use and reduce water and pesticide needs. Duranal also raised environmental concerns that have surfaced elsewhere, saying there is attention to “forever chemicals often referred to as PFAS” in some turf systems and to potential microplastic runoff as turf weathers.
Carlos Salazar of the district facilities department gave preliminary maintenance and water-use estimates to help the board compare options. Salazar said annual maintenance for natural-grass fields varies by campus size but “ranges from about $35,000 to $70,000 a year” in the district’s estimates and that synthetic turf scenarios show lower ongoing irrigation and routine mowing costs, though higher initial installation and eventual replacement costs.
The board reviewed the facilities committee’s process: dozens of site and community meetings produced an 82‑page engagement summary (“the big doc”) that captured priorities and dot-voting from each campus. Voters approved an $80,000,000 bond in March 2020. The committee reported that roughly $56,000,000 worth of top-priority projects were identified across sites but only about $32,000,000 remained unallocated for phases 2 and 3. Option packages presented by staff cluster improvements in four categories: shade; fields and tracks; multiuse-room upgrades; and outdoor learning areas.
Key cost and design items cited from staff materials included: proposed synthetic turf fields with decomposed-granite tracks at EDS and Moreland Middle School (MMS) with rough costs near $6 million each; a $4.3 million placeholder for renovating remaining grass areas at MMS and EDS in one option; a roughly $8.8 million line for a combination of turf-and-grass solutions across elementary campuses; and a roughly $650,000 figure to refurbish Latimer’s existing turf. One option (labeled option C in staff materials) that would add a second regulation-size field at MMS and a rubberized track increased the MMS line item to roughly $14.7 million and exceeded the committee’s available budget.
Options differed most at MMS: staff presented lower-cost decomposed-granite track treatments that require more maintenance and periodic refill, and higher-cost rubberized (asphalt with a rubber topcoat) tracks found at some regional middle and high schools. Staff noted that the rubberized option would consume several million dollars more and would reduce or eliminate funds available to improve other grass areas.
Board members and principals also discussed how campus-specific factors affect use and maintenance. Staff noted that some fields are heavily used for daily recess, after-school activities and rentals, while other large grass areas at EDS are not regularly used for daily supervision or PE because of sight-line and supervision constraints; one principal reported the back field is used primarily for occasional events such as cross-country meets. Trustees pressed staff on lifecycle cost modeling and on who would pay ongoing maintenance and water costs if fields remain natural grass.
On next steps, staff said they will compute a 10‑ to 15‑year total cost of ownership comparison (installation plus anticipated maintenance, water and replacement cycles) for representative elementary and middle-school field scenarios and include that analysis in a Friday board report. Staff also said they will carry forward design work and solicit potential contracts and alternates so, if pricing comes in favorably, the district can add items as alternates in a future construction package. Board members indicated a preference, without formal action, for a hybrid approach that preserves natural-grass areas at each campus while adding synthetic turf at sites where durability and year-round use are priorities; several trustees said they lean toward option D (a more affordable version of an expanded MMS plan) or a mix between options A and D pending the cost comparison.
No binding decisions or roll-call votes were taken at the study session; staff characterized the result as direction to proceed with planning, cost modeling and early solicitation. Staff will return with the cost model and pricing alternates for board review and possible future action.
